Countryside Alliance & Ors v HM Attorney General & Ors

Countryside Alliance & Ors v HM Attorney General & Ors

The court held that the Hunting Act 2004 pursues a legitimate aim of preventing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral judgment that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical. There was sufficient evidential material for Parliament to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel. The Act is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Countryside Alliance & Others; Claimant: Frances Derwin & Others; Claimant: Brian Friend & Hugh Thomas; Defendant: H. M. Attorney General; Defendant: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another; Intervener: RSPCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Applications for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Proportionality, Legitimate Aim, Margin of Appreciation, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Association, Right to Property, Discrimination, Animal Welfare, Public Morality, European Free Movement, Interpretation of Statutes
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law European Union Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Proportionality Legitimate Aim Margin of Appreciation +8 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Countryside Alliance & Others

Claimant

Frances Derwin & Others

Claimant

Brian Friend & Hugh Thomas

Claimant

H. M. Attorney General

Defendant

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another

Defendant

RSPCA

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hunting Act 2004 is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and/or European Community law
  2. 2 Whether the Act constitutes a disproportionate interference with rights under Articles 8, 11, 14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Act infringes fundamental EU Treaty rights (free movement of goods, services, workers)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Hunting Act 2004 pursues a legitimate aim of preventing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral judgment that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical. There was sufficient evidential material for Parliament to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel. The Act is rationally connected to its aim, does not go further than necessary, and is proportionate. The margin of appreciation for Parliament in such matters is wide. The Act does not infringe Convention or EU rights beyond what is justified. The applications for judicial review are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for judicial review dismissed.
  • Claimants to pay the defendants' costs in full (except Friend & Thomas, against whom no order for costs was made).